DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-2, 4-15, and 17-20 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The IDS filed 12/17/2025 is considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
4. Claims 1-2, 4-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In regard to claim 1, claim 1 has been amended to recite “generating, based on the content seed, a prompt for processing by a generative language transformer model; processing, using the generative language transformer model, the prompt to generate processed content that comprises a plurality of words arranged in a sequence determined by the generative language transformer model”. In the reply filed 2/25/2026, applicants indicate support for this subject matter is found in Paragraphs 0019 and 0021. While these paragraphs discuss a content seed which is used by the generative model to produce processed content where the generative model can be a generative transformer model including autoregressive language models to produce human like text, these paragraphs do not teach or suggest generating a prompt based on the content seed and processing the prompt with the generative language transformer model to generate content that comprises a plurality of words arranged in a sequence, as required by the claim. These paragraphs are silent with respect to the recited prompt and also do not provide any explanation of generating a prompt based on the content seed as required by the claim.
In regard to claims 2 and 4-7, claims 2 and 4-7 depend from claim 1 and are rejected at least based on their dependency.
In regard to claim 8, claim 8 has been amended to recite “wherein a generative language transformer model processes the user input based on a document history associated with the processed content to produce the updated processed content, wherein the generative language transformer model determines a plurality of words arrangement in a sequence”. Applicants have failed to indicate where support is provided for this subject matter. Further, the examiner is unable to locate a written description of this subject matter in the specification. The written portion of the specification is silent with respect to a plurality of words arrangement in a sequence.
In regard to claims 9-13, claims 9-13 depend from claim 8 and are rejected at least based on their dependency.
In regard to claim 14, claim 14 recites similar subject matter as claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasons.
In regard to claims 15 and 17-20, claims 15 and 17-20 depend from claim 14 and are rejected at least based on their dependency.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
5. Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regard to claim 8, claim 8 has been amended to recite “…a plurality of words arrangement in a sequence”. The scope of this limitation is unclear as the written specification fails to disclose a plurality of words arrangement in a sequence and it is not clear what is meant by the recited “a plurality of words arrangement”. It is unclear whether the claim is claiming a plurality of words arrangement or if it is a typo and should recite “a plurality of words arranged in a sequence”? Accordingly, the claim is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regard to claims 9-13, claims 9-13 depend from claim 8 and are rejected at least based on their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 7, 14-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by N et al. (US 2019/0377785 A1), hereinafter referred to as N785.
In regard to claim 1, N785 discloses a system comprising: at least one processor; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the system to perform a set of operations, the set of operations comprising (Paragraphs 0172-0174):
receiving a content generation request comprising a content seed (Paragraph 0117 lines 1-14 and Paragraph 0118: user inputs text into a textual input field for a generation-request);
generating, based on the content seed, a prompt for processing by a generative language transformer model (Paragraph 0050 and Paragraph 0119: selection of the generation-request option causes the text entered by the user to be provided (e.g. as a prompt) to the content generation system);
processing, using the generative language transformer model, the prompt to generate processed content that comprises a plurality of words arranged in a sequence determined by the generative language transformer model; and providing, in response to the content generation request, the processed content (Paragraph 0121: a draft document is composed and presented),
wherein the generative language transformer model is a first generative language transformer model (Paragraph 0050: draft generator);
and the set of operations further comprises:
receiving an iterative generation request comprising an indication of a user input (Paragraph 0052: user input (e.g. selecting an audience));
processing, using a second generative language transformer model, the user input based on a document history associated with the processed content to produce updated processed content (Paragraph 0052 and Paragraph 0062: audience-channel editor generates a suggested modification based on the user input by comparing the draft document with audience-channel specific documents).
In regard to claim 2, N785 discloses wherein the generative language transformer model is selected from a set of generative language models according to the content seed (Paragraph 0050: draft generator is utilized as the user inputted text is the initial input for generating content).
In regard to claim 4, N785 discloses wherein the document history comprises: at least a part of the processed content; and information associated with first user input (the draft document and audience-channel specific document in relation to the input indicating an audience).
In regard to claim 7, N785 discloses wherein the updated processed content is produced by identifying a subpart of the processed content associated with the user input based on a semantic similarity of the identified subpart and the user input (Paragraph 0052, Paragraph 0057, Paragraph 0062, and Paragraph 0092: candidate revisions are obtained by identifying synonyms or similar words or phrases from the documents and determining whether they improve alignment).
In regard to claims 14, 15, 17, and 20, method claims 14, 15, 17, and 20 correspond generally to system claims 1, 2, 4 and 7, respectively, and recite similar features in method form, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
7. Claim(s) 5, 6, 8, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over N et al. (US 2019/0377785 A1), hereinafter referred to as N785, and further in view of Vinay et al. (US 2019/0251150 A1).
In regard to claim 5, while N785 teaches processing the user input to produce updated processed content, they fail to show the generating a set of confidence scores for subparts of the processed content; and the updated processed content is provided as a set of uncertain subparts based on a set of confidence scores, as recited in the claims. Vinay teaches updating content similar to that of N785. In addition, Vinay further teaches
generating a set of confidence scores for subparts of content; and updated content is provided as a set of uncertain subparts based on a set of confidence scores (Paragraph 0044, Paragraph 0045, and Paragraph 0056: candidate document portions having associated similarity scores and rankings to indicate degree in confidence).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of N785 and Vinay before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the processing the user input to produce updated processed content taught by N785 to include the generating a set of confidence scores for subparts of content; and updated content is provided as a set of uncertain subparts based on a set of confidence scores of Vinay, in order to obtain wherein: processing the user input to produce updated processed content further comprises generating a set of confidence scores for subparts of the processed content; and the updated processed content is provided as a set of uncertain subparts based on a set of confidence scores. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as maintaining information of digital documents over time and a user is able to identify and change document portions in an efficient manner, as suggested by Vinay (Paragraph 0020, Paragraph 0021 lines 1-3, Paragraph 0024, and Paragraph 0025).
In regard to claim 6, Vinay further discloses wherein the set of uncertain subparts comprises the subparts ranked in ascending order according to associated confidence scores (Paragraph 0008 lines 1-5 and Paragraph 0045: output in ranked order). Accordingly, the combination further teaches wherein the set of uncertain subparts comprises the subparts ranked in ascending order according to associated confidence scores. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as maintaining information of digital documents over time and a user is able to identify and change document portions in an efficient manner, as suggested by Vinay (Paragraph 0020, Paragraph 0021 lines 1-3, Paragraph 0024, and Paragraph 0025).
In regard to claim 8, N785 discloses a method for iterative content generation, the method comprising (Fig. 2, digital content generation system 106; more in Fig. 1 & Fig. 8 & Figs. 6-7; [0187], steps/acts described in Fig. 2 & Figs. 4A-4B & Figs. 5A-5C may be repeated or performed in parallel with one another or in parallel with different instances of the same or similar steps/acts; Fig. 5C & [0127]-[0128], iteratively selecting suggested modifications and generating/updating output content):
providing, to a document service, a content generation request comprising a content seed (Figs. 4A-4B & [0070], receives user input, by a document service, e.g., document/content generation system(s) or server(s) 102 in Fig. 1, indicating a textual segment 202 which is a content generation request and a content seed; Fig. 5A & [0116]-[0117]);
receiving, in response to the content generation request, processed content comprising a set of uncertain subparts (Fig. 2 & [0050]-[0051], Fig. 2 shows a sample processed content 210, in response to user input of a content seed “Sustainability”; the processed content includes a first or first-type-of suggested modification 212a corresponding to features of the content-guideline-conforming documents, a set of uncertain subparts; Figs. 4A-4B & [0083]-[0086], content 210 including first types of modifications like 212a in Fig. 2 is the processed content, generated by a generative model, e.g., machine learning model 408 in Fig. 4B in addition to the step of draft document generation from user selected content seed in Fig. 4A; more in Figs. 5A-5C & [0116]-[0132] and Fig. 7, steps 710 and 720 on generating draft document based user selected content seed and a first type of suggested modifications, e.g., 212a in Fig. 2 and 534a-534f in Fig. 5C which are the recited “set of uncertain subparts”, based on a comparison of attribute dimension scores 530a-530e for the draft document 520 and attribute-dimension-score distributions for content-guideline-conforming documents);
generating a display of a document editor comprising: at least a part of the processed content; and an uncertain subpart of the set of uncertain subparts (Fig. 3, content-guideline editor and audience-channel editor; Figs. 5A-5D and associated paragraphs teach the recited document editor, content 520 in Figs. 5B-5C is the processed content; Fig. 5C & [0127]-[0128], 534a-537f are suggested modifications 534a-534f to the draft document 520 within a suggested-modification menu 536, i.e., a set of uncertain subparts; each of the suggested modifications 534a-534f are user selectable options; Additionally, or alternatively, upon detection of user selection, the publisher device 112 sends a request to the digital content generation system 106 to incorporate the one or more selected suggested modifications from the suggested modifications 534a-534f into the draft document 520 in [0128]; similarly, Fig. 2 & [0053], iterative user selections of the first type of suggested modification and the corresponding content update);
receiving user input associated with the uncertain subpart; providing, to the document service, an indication of the user input; receiving, from the document service, updated processed content. Wherein a generative language transformer model processes the user input based on a document history associated with the processed content to produce the updated processed content, wherein the generative language transformer model determines a plurality of words arrangement in a sequence; and updating the display based on the received updated processed content (Figs. 5A-5D and associated paragraphs teach the recited document editor, content 520 in Figs. 5B-5C is the processed content; Fig. 5C & [0127]-[0128], 534a-537f are suggested modifications 534a-534f to the draft document 520 within a suggested-modification menu 536, i.e., a set of uncertain subparts; each of the suggested modifications 534a-534f are user selectable options; Additionally, or alternatively, upon detection of user selection of a suggested modification, i.e., the uncertain part, the publisher device 112 receives user input indication and sends a request to the digital content generation system 106 to incorporate the one or more selected suggested modifications from the suggested modifications 534a-534f into the draft document 520 that is displayed in Fig. 5C in [0128], i.e., draft document 520 becomes the updated processed content after incorporation and the display of draft document 520 in Fig. 5C is updated; similarly, Fig. 2 & [0053], iterative user selections of the first type of suggested modification and the corresponding content update).
N785 does not seem to expressly teach the limitation wherein the uncertain subpart has an associated confidence score.
However, the prior art of Vinay can be relied upon for a teaching of the limitation. Vinay is directed toward Digital Document Update (see Vinay [title]). Vinay teaches providing user selectable system-generated candidate document portions for content update ([abstract] & [0008]). Specifically, Vinay teaches the limitation wherein the uncertain subpart has an associated confidence score ([0044]-[0045] & [0056] & Fig. 4 & Fig. 7, in response to user input, provide candidate document portions, having suggested trailing changes or document update, for users to select; the candidate document portions are a set of uncertain subparts of the document; the candidate document portions have associated similarity scores and corresponding rankings that are used to indicate a degree in confidence. similarity scores indicating at least a threshold amount of similarity may be used to cause a document transformation module to generate an updated digital document automatically and without user intervention, thus, only providing a set of uncertain subparts based on the set of corresponding confidence scores of the subparts that are below the threshold for manual content update, since automatic updates applied to those subparts with the highest ranks).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the teachings of Vinay, which provides only a set of candidate document portions below a predefined threshold for users to select as document update portions, with the teachings of N785 to achieve the claim limitation, with reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to make such a combination so that users can quickly locate and confirm the update portions without going through a long list of suggested document update portions (Vinay: [0044]-[0045]).
In regard to claim 18, method claim 18 corresponds generally to system claim 5 and recites similar features in method form and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
8. Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over N et al. (US 2019/0377785 A1), hereinafter referred to as N785, Vinay et al. (US 2019/0251150 A1), and further in view of Gururajan et al. (US 2017/0220545 A1).
In regard to claim 9, N785/Vinay teaches the method of claim 8. N785 seems to be silent on the limitation further comprising: receiving user actuation of a quick start user interface element of the document editor; in response to the user actuation, displaying a quick start prompt; and receiving user input of the content seed at the quick start prompt.
However, the prior art of Gururajan, directed towards generating templates from user’s past document (see Gururajan: [title]), can be relied upon for a teaching of this limitation. Gururajan teaches providing document templates in a user interface for selection by a user as guidelines or a starting point for authoring future documents ([abstract], [0002]-[0005]). Specifically, Gururajan teaches the limitation further comprising:
receiving user actuation of a quick start user interface element of the document editor (Figs. 4A-B & [0050], user selects template 120 as a quick start user interface element of the document editor);
in response to the user actuation, displaying a quick start prompt (Fig. 5 & [0051], displayed placeholders 502 are prompts); and
receiving user input of the content seed at the quick start prompt (Fig. 5 & [0051], user input entered as content seed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included the display of user selectable content templates for document creation taught in Gururajan in the editing environment of N785/Vinay to achieve the claim limitation, with reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to make such a combination in order for writers to directly enter information into a pre-constructed template instead of repeatedly creating a new document or a content seed to save time and avoid human error (Gururajan: [0003]-[0005]).
In regard to claim 10, N785/Vinay/Gururajan teaches the method of claim 9. For reasons and motivations cited and discussed in claim 9, N785/Vinay/Gururajan also teaches the limitation wherein the content generation request is provided to the document service as a result of a user actuation of a create user interface element of the quick start prompt (N785: in view of selectable content template to jumpstart content seed creation in Fig. 4A-B & Fig. 5 of Gururajan, invoke ‘generate’ button 512 in Fig. 5A & [0117] of N785 after entering content seed in template 120 of Gururajan).
9. Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over N et al. (US 2019/0377785 A1), hereinafter referred to as N785, Vinay et al. (US 2019/0251150 A1), and further in view of Kohlmeier et al. (US 2019/0205772 A1).
In regard to claim 11, N785/Vinay teaches the method of claim 8. N785 does not seem to expressly teach the limitation further comprising: receiving, from the document service, an indication of a collaborator comment on the uncertain subpart; and presenting the collaborator comment in association with the uncertain subpart.
However, the prior art of Kohlmeier, directed towards eliciting knowledge for inline notes in a content creation application from agents including person or bot agents (see Kohlmeier: [abstract] & [0007]), can be relied upon for a teaching of this limitation. Kohlmeier teaches providing responses from agents for direct insertion into a document having inline notes ([0003]-[0004] & [0007]). Specifically, Kohlmeier teaches the limitation further comprising: receiving, from the document service, an indication of a collaborator comment on the uncertain subpart; and presenting the collaborator comment in association with the uncertain subpart ([0001], Some content creation applications support collaboration; Fig. 6A & [0069]-[0070], comments from WKW who is a collaborator of Patrick in Figs. 5A-5D, WKW comments are associated with the highlighted uncertain subparts, e.g. comment 608 linked by line 610 in Fig. 6A; Fig. 6A also show a profile of WKW in the upper right corner).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included the display of collaborator’s knowledge or comments to a document taught in Kohlmeier in the authoring/editing environment of N785/Vinay to achieve the claim limitation, with reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide a friendly content creation tool for users to collaboratively author new content and edit existing content by utilizing knowledges of a person or an intelligent robot (Kohlmeier: [0001]-[0002] & [0007]).
In regard to claim 12, N785/Vinay teaches the method of claim 8. N785 seems to be silent on the limitation further comprising: receiving, from the document service, an indication of a natural language comment from an automated conversational agent associated with the uncertain subpart; and presenting the automated conversational agent comment in association with the uncertain subpart.
However, the prior art of Kohlmeier, directed towards eliciting knowledge for inline notes in a content creation application from agents including person or bot agents (see Kohlmeier: [abstract] & [0007]), can be relied upon for a teaching of this limitation. Kohlmeier teaches providing responses from agents for direct insertion into a document having inline notes ([0003]-[0004] & [0007]). Specifically, Kohlmeier teaches the limitation further comprising: receiving, from the document service, an indication of a natural language comment from an automated conversational agent associated with the uncertain subpart; and presenting the automated conversational agent comment in association with the uncertain subpart (Fig. 6A & [0069]-[0070], comments from answer bot are associated with the highlighted uncertain subparts).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included the use of robots to provide knowledge or comments to a document taught in Kohlmeier in the authoring/editing environment of N785/Vinay to achieve the claim limitation. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide a friendly content creation tool for users to collaboratively author new content and edit existing content by utilizing knowledges of a person or an intelligent robot (Kohlmeier: [0001]-[0002] & [0007]).
In regard to claim 13, N785/Vinay teaches the method of claim 8. N785 seems to be silent on the limitation receiving user input indicating a content source for the additional content; and providing an indication of the content source to the document service in response to the request to provide the additional content.
However, the prior art of Kohlmeier, directed towards eliciting knowledge for inline notes in a content creation application from agents including person or bot agents (see Kohlmeier: [abstract] & [0007]), can be relied upon for a teaching of this limitation. Kohlmeier teaches providing responses from agents for direct insertion into a document having inline notes ([0003]-[0004] & [0007]). Specifically, Kohlmeier teaches the limitation
receiving, from the document service, a request to provide additional content (Fig. 6A; [0031], implicit/explicit agent request);
receiving user input indicating a content source for the additional content (Fig. 6A & [0069]-[0070], user Patrick provide comment 602 indicate content source “…from 2016 Census”); and
providing an indication of the content source to the document service in response to the request to provide the additional content (Fig. 6A & [0069]-[0070], comment from Patrick indicating content source ‘from 2016 Census’ is displayed in the document service interface in Fig. 6A, in response to the inline note with implicit/explicit agent request in [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included the use of comments from other users to a document taught in Kohlmeier in the authoring/editing environment of N785/Vinay to achieve the claim limitation. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide a friendly content creation tool for users to collaboratively author new content and edit existing content by utilizing knowledges of others (Kohlmeier: [0001]-[0002] & [0007]).
10. Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over N et al. (US 2019/0377785 A1), hereinafter referred to as N785, and further in view of Black et al. (US 8688698 B1).
In regard to claim 19, N785 discloses processing the user input comprises producing updated processed content based at least in part on additional content (Paragraph 0052: based on audience channel specific documents corresponding to selected audience).
While N785 teaches processing the user input comprises producing updated processed content based at least in part on additional content, they fail to show the user input comprises non-linguistic grounding associated with additional content, as recited in the claims. Black teaches suggesting text similar to that of N785. In addition, Black further teaches
user input comprises non-linguistic grounding associated with additional content and processing the user input comprises producing updated content based at least in part on the additional content (Fig. 3, Column 3 lines 32-47, and Column 5 lines 4-19: identifies additional content with a portion that does not match and outputs a selection menu with content including the identified additional content).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of N785 and Black before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the processing the user input comprises producing updated processed content based at least in part on additional content taught by N785 to include the user input comprises non-linguistic grounding associated with additional content and processing the user input comprises producing updated content based at least in part on the additional content of Black, in order to obtain wherein: the user input comprises non-linguistic grounding associated with additional content; and processing the user input comprises producing updated processed content based at least in part on the additional content. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as automatically provide suggestions that supplement an initial portion of text would have been obtained, as suggested by Black (Column 1 lines 65-Column 2 line 1).
Response to Arguments
11. The arguments with respect to claims 1-20 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
It is argued that a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that the Specification describes both generating a prompt from the content seed and processing that prompt using a generative language transformer model to produce model-determined word sequences, based on Paragraphs 0019 and 0021 and verbatim recitation of the term "prompt" or explicit restatement that the model determines word order is not required for written description support, as the Specification clearly conveys possession of the claimed subject matter through its functional and architectural disclosure. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims require “generating, based on the content seed, a prompt for processing by a generative language transformer model”. Paragraphs 0019 and 0021 do not expressly disclose this subject matter. While verbatim recitation of the term "prompt" is not required for written description support, the written description must convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention (emphasis added). Paragraphs 0019 and 0021 do not satisfy this requirement. This is further evident with respect to Fig. 2A and Paragraphs 0036-0038 of the specification, which describes the set of operations for generating processed content when receiving a content generation request comprising a content seed. Fig. 2A and Paragraphs 0019-0021 do not teach or suggest “generating, based on the content seed, a prompt for processing by a generative language transformer model”. Paragraph 0037 recites “Method 200 begins at operation 202, where a request is received to generate content. Such a request may be referred to herein as a content generation request. The request may comprise a content seed, such as one or more words, sentences, or paragraphs” and Paragraph 0038 recites “At operation 204, content is generated based on the received content seed. For example, a generative model may be used to produce the processed content. In examples, operation 204 comprises selecting a generative model from a set of available models, as was discussed above with respect to content generator 114 in Figure 1”. There are no steps disclosed between operation 202 and 204 and there is nothing in the disclosure that would suggest that there is an operation between operation 202 and 204. That is, the specification is silent with respect to “generating, based on the content seed, a prompt for processing by a generative language transformer model”, as required by the claim with respect to the set of operations for generating processed content when receiving a content generation request comprising a content seed. In fact, it appears as though the generative language transformer model uses the content seed to generate processed content and not a prompt that is generated based on the content seed, as required by the claims. Accordingly, the written description does NOT convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention that includes “generating, based on the content seed, a prompt for processing by a generative language transformer model” and therefore does not provide proper support of the amended subject matter of “generating, based on the content seed, a prompt for processing by a generative language transformer model; processing, using the generative language transformer model, the prompt to generate processed content that comprises a plurality of words arranged in a sequence determined by the generative language transformer model”.
12. The arguments with respect to claim 8-13 as being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
It is argued that claim 8 is amended to recite “…a plurality of words arrangement in a sequence…” and therefore the claims are definite. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicants have made no attempt to clarify what is meant by the recited “a plurality of words arrangement”. The specification is silent with respect to a plurality of words arrangement and is not clear what is meant by the recited “a plurality of words arrangement”. Accordingly, the claim is indefinite and the rejection is maintained.
13. The arguments with respect to claim 19 as being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered are persuasive.
The amendments to claim 14 have overcome the rejection to claim 19 as the identified limitations of claim 19 now have antecedent basis. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 19 is withdrawn in view of the amendments.
14. The arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections of claims 1-20 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
It is argued that N785 does not teach or suggest the configuration of claims 1, 8 and 14 because (1) the draft generator of N785 is a retrieval-and-composition pipeline, not a transformer-based generative language model that determines token sequence probabilistically, (2) the user selection of an audience is a parameter selection, not a regeneration request. The system does not re-invoke a generative model to regenerate content conditioned on document history. Instead, it generates suggested modifications relative to reference corpora, (3) Paras. [0052] and [0062] merely disclose an audience-channel editor that computes tone scores, compares drafts to reference documents, and proposes candidate word substitutions. There is no teaching or suggestion of a second generative language transformer model configured to process the user input based on a document history associated with the processed content to produce updated processed content, and (4) N785 also does not disclose processing based on a document history. Instead, N785 merely uses the current draft document and reference corpora, such as guideline documents and audience documents. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In regard to (1), in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a transformer-based generative language model that determines token sequence probabilistically) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). N785 recites in Paragraph 0018 “…a digital content generation system that utilizes machine learning models to automatically create a draft electronic document and textual variants for different audiences and/or different digital delivery channels (e.g., based on an initial sparse textual segment)…” and recites in Paragraph 0050 “the draft generator 204 receives user input indicating a textual segment …and composes an initial version of the draft document …”. As the draft generator utilizes a machine learning model to generate a draft document from user input textual segment, it suggests a transformer based generative language model.
In regard to (2), in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., re-invoke a generative model to regenerate content conditioned on document history) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims recite “receiving an iterative generation request comprising an indication of a user input; processing, using a second generative language transformer model, the user input based on a document history associated with the processed content to produce updated processed content”. The user input indicating an audience, as described in Paragraph 00542 of N785 is iterative generative request comprising an indication of a user input because it’s a user input that directs generation of suggested modification the draft documents. The produced suggested modifications are considered updated processed content which is based on audience channel specific documents, which can be considered a document history associated with processed content. Accordingly, N785 discloses the recited “receiving an iterative generation request comprising an indication of a user input; processing, using a second generative language transformer model, the user input based on a document history associated with the processed content to produce updated processed content”.
In regard to (3), N785 recites in Paragraph 0018 “…a digital content generation system that utilizes machine learning models to automatically create a draft electronic document and textual variants for different audiences and/or different digital delivery channels (e.g., based on an initial sparse textual segment)…” and recites in Paragraph 0062 “…the audience-channel editor 208 generates the suggested modifications 308a and 308b to the draft document 304 for an audience. To generate such suggested modifications, the audience-channel editor 208 compares the draft document 304 with audience-channel-specific documents…”. The audience-channel editor generates the modifications using a machine learning model by comparing to audience-channel specific documents and therefore suggest a second generative language transformer model configured to process the user input based on a document history associated with the processed content to produce updated processed content.
In regard to (4), N785 recited Paragraph 0052 “…based on user input indicating an audience… the audience-channel editor 208 compares the draft document 210 with audience-channel-specific documents and suggests a modification that reflects a communication tone of the audience-channel-specific documents”. The draft document is assigned an audience, and a history of documents that are specific to the assigned audience is utilized to generate the modifications. Accordingly, N785 discloses processing based on a document history.
Conclusion
15. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS S ULRICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1397. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fred Ehichioya can be reached at (571)272-4034. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
17. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Nicholas Ulrich/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights